Sales Myth #2: “More salespeople = more revenue”

The Hidden Trap of Headcount-Based Growth

Picture this: A rapidly growing enterprise doubles its sales team, confidently expecting revenue to double as well. Months pass, but revenues remain largely unchanged. Worse yet, the sales team’s productivity has dropped significantly, morale suffers, and operational overhead balloons. Executives are left puzzled—what went wrong?

This familiar scenario highlights one of the most persistent myths in sales management: the idea that simply adding more salespeople directly correlates to higher revenue.

Origins and Popularity: Why Does this Myth Persist?

This myth traces back to the growth-focused mindset of the 1970s and 1980s. During these decades, aggressive business expansion was widely equated to hiring more staff, particularly salespeople. It seemed intuitive—if 20 salespeople generate revenue X, doubling to 40 salespeople must double the revenue, right?

Yet, despite clear evidence disproving this oversimplified logic, the myth remains popular today—scoring a high popularity rating of 8 out of 10 on our scale.

Who Started this Myth—and Who Keeps it Alive?

The primary authors of this myth were senior executives—CEOs, CFOs, and HR departments who simplistically linked team size to growth potential. Their motivations were understandable but flawed: assuming revenue scales linearly with headcount.

Sales leaders, under intense pressure to deliver quick results, often perpetuate this myth. To them, adding salespeople appears the easiest, most direct path to revenue growth.

Unfortunately, this simplistic logic negatively impacts sales teams, operations, and sales enablement departments—those expected to manage, train, and support the ballooning salesforce.

Why Increasing Headcount Rarely Translates to Revenue Growth

Let’s clearly outline why this myth fails logically:

1. Diminishing Productivity:More salespeople without structured clarity often create confusion, territory overlap, duplicated efforts, and inefficiencies.

2. Higher Complexity, Lower Efficiency:Additional staff without clear structures dramatically increases internal complexity—training requirements, managerial overhead, coordination—which reduces overall productivity and focus.

3. Cost vs. Benefit:The cost of onboarding, training, salary, and resources for each new salesperson often significantly outweighs any incremental revenue, unless the enterprise clearly aligns each addition directly to well-defined strategic objectives.

4. Ignoring Sales Sub-Functions:A balanced sales organization includes critical functions beyond just Field Sales (such as Sales Intelligence, Enablement, Lead Generation, Account Management). Ignoring these functions to add more frontline sellers creates systemic bottlenecks and revenue inefficiencies.
   

Real-World Examples: Lessons Learned from GM, Toys “R” Us, and Sears

General Motors (GM):

GM once expanded dealer networks aggressively, presuming more dealerships and more salespeople meant higher sales. The result? Overlapping territories, diluted productivity per dealership, and declining profit margins. GM eventually restructured and adopted a more strategic distribution model, clearly defining roles and market responsibilities, thereby restoring productivity and revenue growth.

Toys “R” Us:

In efforts to rapidly boost revenue, Toys "R" Us significantly increased sales-floor staffing across stores. Instead of increasing profitability, they faced unsustainable labor costs, reduced individual productivity, and revenue stagnation. Ultimately, their flawed strategy contributed significantly to their financial struggles and bankruptcy.

Sears:

Sears once significantly expanded its salesforce hoping to boost retail revenues, resulting in excessive staffing costs, unclear roles, and productivity losses. Without strategic alignment or structural clarity, Sears found that more employees created inefficiencies rather than growth, accelerating their decline.

A Humorous Perspective: Exposing the Myth

Funny Insight:"Believing more salespeople automatically equals more revenue is like believing hiring ten baristas makes your coffee taste ten times better—it doesn’t, but it sure creates chaos behind the counter."

Humorous Analogy:"Blindly hiring more salespeople hoping for revenue growth is like adding wheels to your bike expecting it to move faster—now you’ve built a clunky machine that's impossible to ride."

Funny Reality Check Scenario:"If increasing salespeople directly increased revenue, the most successful company would be the one with the most crowded sales meetings."

ICMG Enterprise Anatomy-Driven Solution: Optimizing Your Sales Structure

Moving past this myth means adopting a balanced, structured sales team design clearly aligned with enterprise goals. Using ICMG’s Enterprise Anatomy model, companies achieve optimal resource distribution across 12 defined sales sub-functions:

1. Field Sales: Carefully sized and strategically deployed teams, clearly assigned territories.

2. Lead Generation & Business Development: Dedicated specialists ensuring quality, qualified leads.

3. Sales Intelligence & Market Insights: Teams providing essential customer insights, market data, enhancing field sales productivity.

4. Sales Enablement & Operations: Clearly defined roles responsible for onboarding, training, tools, and processes, ensuring maximum productivity from field sales.
   

Achieving Sustainable Sales Growth

Simply adding salespeople rarely leads to predictable revenue growth. True scalability demands clearly structured teams, carefully balanced roles, and strategic alignment across your entire sales organization.

It’s time to move beyond simplistic headcount logic and embrace a structured sales approach proven by enterprise success stories.

Join our exclusive ICMG webinar, "Sales Myths Destroying Your Sales Strategy," and learn exactly how structured, clearly defined sales architectures deliver measurable, sustainable revenue growth.